Complaint of Discrimination
Under The Human Rights Code (Manitoba)
The Complainant alleges that in the Province of Manitoba, on a continuing basis up to and including September 18, 2008 that the Respondent did contravene Sections 13, 14 and 19 of The Human Rights Code, or any other applicable section as follows
1. My employment with the Provincial Government began January 2005 and was terminated June 30, 2008. During the course of my various term positions,
a. I had self-declared under the Employment Equity as being a woman of Métis status,
b. I had not self-declared that I suffer from a lifelong mental illness because of the stigma associated with mental illness. I also felt that the existing governmental policies adequately addressed my health needs and mental well being, and
c. I have represented myself to my co-workers as being, and living according to Christian values and principles, providing my sons with a private Christian School education and supporting the Church and its community outreach projects. I credit God’s presence for sustaining me during the darkest hours of psychosis as well as my faith for enabling me to take personal responsibility for my health and welfare over the past 17 years.
2. My mood disorder resulted from two postpartum mania episodes leading to psychosis, the first occurring July 1991 and the last episode requiring hospitalization occurred in 2001. Once stabilized, Lithium is required to control, and minimize chances of mania. I have taken daily doses of Lithium since 1993. The illness does not change my values and principles but under extreme stressed conditions, beliefs are intensified. Because of my history of multiple episodes, my doctor advised that the medications to bring me out of psychosis may not work the next time, and that the next episode may result in permanent institutionalization.
3. Through trials and errors I believe I have been successful at sustaining recovery. My resume highlights a successful work and volunteer history. I credit my illness as the catalyst that has enabled me to develop a healthier personal and work life balance. Prior to OSD, I had a perfect work attendance record as well as excellent performance references.
4. I began a one-year term position from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, with a further extension to June 30, 2008 as Training Administrator, Clerk 3 with the Provincial Government, Organization & Staff Development (“OSD”), a non-union, special operating agency of the Manitoba Civil Service Commission (“CSC”). The T.A. Clerk 3 position is an ongoing OSD position that (other than my terms) has been filled as a permanent position. Jackie Desrochers, Manager of Training Services (OSD) and Diane Netzel, Registrar, Clerk 3 (OSD) participated in the interview panel wherein I self-declared as being of Métis status. As a result of past and recent circumstances as referred to herein, I believe that Ms Desrochers was aware of my mental illness history.
5. My co-worker, Diane Netzel and I shared office space during my term. Although our classification was the same and position descriptions mirrored the other, I believe I was discriminated against and treated in a subservient manner. My supervisor, supported unfair work practices and work distribution at my expense. Menial tasks that stemmed from the Registrar (Guide) materials were routinely given to me to file, destroy, organize or run over to Place Louis Hotel. Both Ms Netzel and Ms Desrochers had expressed their contempt of Aboriginal people and resented their preferential treatment in government. As they both knew I had self-declared at the interview, I found their statements to be directed at me.
6. As part of my Learning Plan on or about December 2007 I expressed my intention to Ms Desrochers to attend the Aboriginal workshop scheduled January 2008. I explained that in light of the renewal initiative and the fact that the Aboriginal population is the only one that is significantly growing, I felt it would be good for me to better understand the culture. Jackie seemed disinterested so I asked her if she had ever taken the workshop as I had skimmed through the information every time I packed the workshop and found it incredible. Jackie exclaimed she “had her fill of it. If you had to sit though all the meetings I had to put up with because of them, you’d understand. I don’t need to go to any workshops.” I then removed myself from the January workshop as I did not want to further antagonize my supervisor.
7. Throughout my employment, my co-worker Diane Netzel would swear on a daily basis. Most upsetting was when she would use God’s name in vain. She frequently shouted in anger “Jesus”, “Jesus Christ”, “for God’s sake” or “for Christ sake”. Co-workers told me that she had been asked in the past to stop swearing. Ms Netzel responded by cutting out an outline of a hand with a middle finger pointing up, which she then taped to a stick. When she felt like swearing, she would give people ‘the finger’. People found this more annoying than the swearing. Since management had taken no action, co-workers eventually accepted that nothing could, or would be done about it. However, as we were sharing office space and the swearing was recurring daily, I did let Ms Netzel know that I wanted her to stop. Her response was “forget about it, you’re not the first one to ask me to stop. It won’t work. You don’t want me to do to you, what I did to them.” And then she laughingly recounted to me ‘the finger’ story. I discussed this with her supervisor. Although Ms Desrochers witnessed the swearing firsthand and at times it was directed at her, at no time was I ever aware that Ms Netzel was reproached for her inappropriate behavior. On March 11, 2008 I advised Ms Beauchamp that I took issue with the fact that Ms Desrochers never took a supervisory role with respect to the swearing, and that it was still continuing, but still no action.
8. The unfair work distribution grew to unrealistic proportions due to:
a. Communications Coordinator position being vacant since October 2007, and all special projects work (during the five months up to my sick leave) was given to me;
b. A new inexperienced broker resulted in an increase in In-house workshops to me;
c. Ms Netzel was away on an extended sick leave beginning February 2008 and this work was also redirected to me.
9. The workplace became very toxic in that the work expectations were unreasonable and I felt my supervisor was not providing me with the necessary tools to get all the work done. I felt hostility from Ms Desrochers when asking for support or direction. I began physically feeling the strain of workplace stress in that I suffered daily migraines, hot flashes, muscle aches and difficulty in breathing with chest pains that resulted in medical attention.
10. On Friday afternoon, February 8, 2008, I met with newly appointed Director (OSD), Anna Schmidt Beauchamp and I shared with her what I believed were organizational problems with OSD. I felt the meeting was productive, and I felt my concerns acknowledged and support from Ms Beauchamp. She too had observed that changes were needed.
11. On Monday, February 11th, Ms Beauchamp sent me an email requesting a contact phone number in case of medical emergency. I believed this precautionary action was as a result of Ms Desrochers advising Ms Beauchamp of my medical illness history. I viewed this as a positive sign that Ms Beauchamp had my health and best interests in mind. I responded to her email by providing four phone numbers.
12. From this point on, Ms Desrochers became extremely hostile as she viewed my comments to the Director (and her supervisor) as a personal attack. In retaliation, on March 5th (in the presence of Ms Beauchamp) she deliberately fabricated a non-issue matter and presented it as an ongoing performance issue. As a result of this unsupported claim I was not offered permanent employment. As I defended myself during this meeting against the unsupported attack, I noticed Ms Beauchamp’s attention was averted to my hands as I was experiencing hand tremors. I then explained it was a result of medication that I needed to take.
13. On March 7th I had taken a VL day and spent the weekend putting together a detailed report illustrating the duties, responsibilities and extra projects I had undertaken in preparation for my defence against the accusations. On March 10th I provided Ms Beauchamp with that information including correspondence from trainers and participants indicating a positive rapport and appreciation for my assistance. I then requested a meeting with Ms Beauchamp and Ms Desrochers. I provided the Agenda.
14. On March 11, 2008 I clearly illustrated that the allegations were false. Ms Beauchamp verbally acknowledged that I had been wronged, and that as part of the CSC, “we clearly need to pick up our socks”. I requested that the purpose of the meeting be documented. I had previous discussions with co-workers who recounted personal experiences of harassment at the hands of Ms Desrochers and so I believed it to be important that a true account of the incident be documented. I further requested that the information being collected in my personnel file be accurate and complete as provided under FIPPA. During the meeting I showed signs of physical distress. I found it exceedingly difficult to speak as my mouth was parched. I did bring water to the meeting but my hand tremors became so uncontrollable that I could not control my hand to lift the glass. Once again, I explained that I was on medication. As I could not stop shaking and crying, I excused myself halfway through the meeting until I felt I had regained control. At the end of the meeting Ms Beauchamp said she would draft a Memorandum to capture what was discussed. After Ms Desrochers left the room, I told her I didn’t understand why it happened, but I believed that things happen for a reason and that something good would come out of this. Ms Beauchamp agreed with me in my belief that things happen for a reason.
15. Memorandum dated March 12, 2008 and drafted by Ms Beauchamp did not reflect any accountability or responsibility on the part of Ms Desrochers. I did not sign the memo and insisted that a true accounting of the March 11th meeting be documented. Ms Desrochers provided me with a positive reference letter dated March 17, 2008, but I still persisted in my request to Ms Beauchamp for a revised Memorandum. I was given a memo dated April 7, 2008. There was little change from the original memo of March 12, 2008. However, this time I was not asked to sign that I was in agreement. The topic was not open to further discussion.
16. The workplace stress continued to increase. Ms Netzel was still away on sick leave. I had taken vacation days from March 27 to April 7, 2008 as mental health days but as there was no backup relief for either Clerk positions, the work waiting for me on my return was insurmountable. The stress was further compounded as a result of ensuing lengthy and harassing meetings with Ms Desrochers, details of which had been provided in the Respectful Workplace Policy complaint.
17. That on April 9, 2008 I forwarded a lengthy email to Ms Desrochers with copy to Ms Beauchamp. The email clearly showed that I was in crisis; I provided detailed information about work; I states that I am awake at 3:00 a.m. in the morning; I refer to myself in the third party and paraphrasing Dr. Haim Ginott, I state:
“….a supervisor possesses tremendous power to make an employee’s life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of inspiration. I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal. In all situations it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated, and an employee humanized or dehumanized.”
I further advised that I would be filing a complaint against Ms Desrochers. As I had not slept the night before, I phoned in sick and made an appointment to see my doctor. He felt I was suffering from harassment and he put me on medical leave from April 9 to April 23, 2008 and further extended to May 4, 2008.
18. On April 10, 2008 Ms Beauchamp sent me an email indicating, “When you are well enough to return to work, the matter outlined in this email (para.17) will be appropriately addressed. Until then, your return to health is of primary importance.” I replied on April 11, 2008 with copy to Debra Woodgate, CSC Commissioner referring to the situation as a crisis.
19. Following my return to work on May 5, 2008:
a. I submitted the Respectful Workplace Policy (RWP) Level 4 complaint against Ms Desrochers. Neither Ms Beauchamp nor anyone in HR or EAP discussed this matter with me. There were no polite inquiries as to my health. No discussions pertaining to changes in duties. I could not talk to co-workers about the complaint and felt totally alienated.
b. My computer files and Outlook folders had been deleted during my sick leave. According to EDS (tech support), I was advised that someone in my department had done the deletion manually. Laurel Munn, Training & Development Officer (OSD) advised that Ms Desrochers had access to my files and folders and had provided her with a ‘snapshot’ of my files. There is no explanation as to the purpose of accessing my files, as all OSD work was stored on the shared drive.
c. When advised of the deletion, Ms Beauchamp simply stated that she ‘had not authorized it’. I later advised Ms Beauchamp that I had made the request for EDS to restore my files. Although her authorization was not necessary nonetheless she did have knowledge that it happened. To my knowledge this incident was not investigated.
d. Ms Beauchamp advised that she would be my supervisor.
20. The first meeting with Ms Beauchamp as my supervisor to discuss changes in my duties occurred on May 26, 2008, three weeks after my return. I found it very stressful to not be informed of any development pertaining to the complaint or changes in my duties. I felt that that there was no sense of order and none of the steps outlined in government policies had been taken. I felt confused by Ms Beauchamp’s cold demeanour especially in light of her earlier caring comments as well as follow up Get Well card. At the meeting:
a. Ms Beauchamp factually stated that Ginette Grimard, HR Finance would be investigating the RWP complaint and I would be contacted. She would be in attendance to observe. There was no discussion.
b. I had earlier discovered that I was the contact person on the OSD website for five programs that I had no knowledge of. The first call I received, I forwarded an email on May 12th to Shirley Swan, Development Consultant (OSD) as the caller was requesting consultation regarding career advancement strategies. On May 16 once I realized my number was on the website, I sent Ms Beauchamp an email asking if this was an error. It is at this May 26th meeting that my question is addressed and I am criticized and reprimanded for not being able to carry out the expectations of my job. She then returned my request form for VRW days and VL days and merely stated, “It’s not necessary. The decision regarding your term has not been made.” As I felt the environment to be threatening, I did not address any issue raised.
21. On May 30, 2008 I sent an email to both Laurel Munn and Charlotte Elson A/Manager of Training and Operations inquiring whether we had received the materials for a workshop scheduled in Gimli on June 5, 2008. Procedures had not been followed regarding In-house workshops. OSD policy requires that the consultant provide the name of the workbook and date the material is expected and it was not provided. The project sheet had not been placed in the tray for processing. Ms Desrochers had left OSD on May 2nd and yet she was recorded as entering the workshop on May 16th. Letters of Agreement to trainer and client had not been sent out.
22. The responding email from Ms Elson sent Friday, May 30, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. was received by me on Monday June 2, 2008 a.m. stated:
“…it would seem to me that perhaps it would make more sense for you to contact (the trainer) directly to clarify that information. I could certainly understand that if there was an issue of greater magnitude that it might make sense for us to get involved.
If however there is an issue with the trainer that compromises your ability to do this directly please let myself know and we can figure out how to deal with it.
I would also suggest that this process be standard procedure whenever items of clarification need to be dealt with, with any of the trainers.”
I believe Ms Desrochers had coerced Ms Elson to reply in this hostile manner. I brought the email to the RWP investigative meeting (June 2nd) to illustrate that the harassment was continuing. Eventually, Ms Beauchamp stated that she directed Ms Elson.
Upon my return to work, I contacted the trainer for the materials and she advised that the materials had been sent to Ms Munn. Ms Munn confirmed that she had received the materials days earlier but had not forwarded them to me. That evening I kept reliving the day’s events. My mental health was at risk with another sleepless night.
23. On June 3, 2008 I advised I was taking a sick day. I addressed the email to Ms Elson and copied Ms Munn. I reiterated my rationale as to why I had contacted both of them on May 30th for the printing materials. I felt it was logical to first check with the two people who may know something about the workshop rather than appearing unprofessional to the trainer. As Ms Munn had the workshop materials in her office, it would appear that I had acted sensibly. In my frustration, I signed off “Marie (name in full). Civil Subservient”..
24. On June 4th I began work at noon as I had taken a pre-approved half-day vacation. Ms Elson asked me to come to her office at 1:00. It was not a scheduled meeting and I was not aware that Ms Beauchamp would be in attendance. I therefore found myself unprepared for the attack lasting approximately one hour. Ms Beauchamp set the tone and took control of the meeting. The following was discussed;
a. Ms Beauchamp stated that my email was inappropriate and disrespectful to Ms Elson and I should not have involved Ms Munn. I explained that Ms Munn was copied on the email as she was directly involved in the subject matter of the Gimli workshop materials. The reply sent to Ms Elson was an attempt to clarify and confirm the intent of the email as to whether they were trying to imply that I did not make sense.
b. Ms Beauchamp insisted once again that I was being unfair to Ms Elson as she was new to the position. I felt it was unfair that they were projecting their beliefs onto Ms Elson and use her to send me a harassing email. I believed that this was in retaliation of filing the complaint, and as a result I had been ‘red flagged’. Ms Beauchamp then replied, “You can’t think that way. You think everybody is out to get you.”
c. Criticism regarding my signing the email as Civil Subservient was discussed and through tears, I explained that it reflected how I was made to feel. I was accused of making little sense; and I did feel I was being treated in a subservient manner. I further explained, “You don’t send an email like that to someone who has been off on stress leave and tell them that you’re not making sense.”
d. Ms Beauchamp acknowledged that I had disclosed at the meeting (on June 2nd) my mental health illness and that I had mentioned I was on medication. She then said, “Maybe if you could tell us more about your medical condition?” I explained that 17 years ago I was told I had a mental health issue. As a result I have had to adopt a healthy lifestyle. I need to exercise, eat healthy, but most important is getting enough sleep. That is why the stress with Jackie was so hard on me. I would go home and feel that I had to work on my defence against Jackie’s attacks. This affected my sleep. That’s why I went on sick leave” (3 ½ weeks medical leave). Ms Beauchamp asked if it was possible that I overreacted to the email as a result of the meeting on Monday? Having to re-live all the details got you all upset…”
e. I replied that it was upsetting. “But my illness does not make me imagine things. I’m not crazy. It hasn’t affected my ability to work.” I further explained that I had had a number of stressful jobs but never has it affected my health as long as I am treated with respect. “If I feel I am being attacked, my thoughts speed up. When that happens I can’t sleep. If I don’t sleep, then it can get so bad that I have to be hospitalized. I now recognize when I am beginning to speed up. I know how to deal with it. That’s why I went to my doctor. But it doesn’t mean that I’m crazy. I just get accelerated. Like in a panic situation where your adrenaline kicks in. The police said I was like someone on cocaine. I’ve never been on cocaine so I can’t say. But it doesn’t mean I’m irrational. “ At this point my speech, my thoughts and my crying are flooding out uncontrollably. I am handed a box of Kleenex from Ms Elson.
f. Ms Beauchamp said in a patronizing manner, “Look at you. There’s something wrong with you. You can’t thing that way. You’re wrong.” I told her “You can’t tell me what I can or cannot think. How I feel. I own it and it’s based on my perception of what’s going on. My perception is based on all the events that have taken place since I returned from stress leave”. I then explained what I believed to be the protocol when someone returns from sick leave especially in light the emails I had sent to work. But there was no process of re-entry to work. Nobody talked to me at all for weeks. Ms Beauchamp was annoyed and replied, “What did you expect me to say to you?” I told her she could have welcomed me back to work, meet with me to discuss the complaint, clarify work issues, suggest to speak to someone at EAP to deal with the complaint or my health, seeing as I was off on stress leave – the things that you’re supposed to do for someone when they file a complaint.” She asked where did it say that. I told her the Respectful Workplace Policy.
g. Still crying, I detail the events of the manual deletion of my files; change in duties involving OPCP; criticized for not having knowledge of programs that I had never been advised I was made contact person for; having the VL and VRW form returned as deemed unnecessary, and this last attack saying that I am not making sense and questioning my ability to do my job. Feeling totally frantic and beaten, I blurt out “I swear to God and on the lives of my sons that I truly believe with all my heart that what I have said is the absolute truth, the procedure I had followed was exactly as I had followed throughout the past year and that I have done nothing to deserve this unfair treatment. And if you don’t see that what you are doing now as unfair, and how you are treating me is wrong and disrespectful to me, then don’t renew my term.” She then said that if that is what you want I won’t renew the term. I told her it seemed pretty obvious that that is what they wanted.
I was clearly in distress throughout the meeting and yet at no time did either of them suggest that we resume this meeting at a later time to enlist the aid of someone in HR trained in mental health matters. Once the realization set in that I was now unemployed (which plays a tremendous part in my recovery), I stood at the desk, stared blankly ahead and did not speak. Then in a barely audible voice I asked questions about Ms Elson’s children, which was rather surreal in light of the present situation. This was clearly awkward for them and they just wanted me to leave the office. Ms Beauchamp made no offer to phone any one of the four phone numbers I had previously given to her for such an emergency.
25. On June 5, 2008 Ms Beauchamp placed a memorandum on my desk stating that it was I who did not wish my term to be renewed and thus my term would end on June 30, 2008. I told her that the memorandum was not accurate in that it was their choice to terminate. I never signed the memorandum. Record of Employment indicates ‘term expiration’.
26. On June 10, 2008 I advised Ms Beauchamp that I had a doctor’s appointment the next day. This was a follow up appointment from the medical leave. She did not believe me and requested that I bring in a doctor’s certificate. As a medical certificate is only required after three days sick leave, I believe this to be harassment. I provided the doctor’ confirmation of appointment.
27. On June 17, 2008 I called EAP. The receptionist took my name and home, cell and work phone numbers. I was told that I would receive a call within 24 hours. The call was not returned.
28. On June 25, 2008 I provided a letter to Sylvie Lavergne, Director, Human Resources Programs (as indicated in the Respectful Workplace Policy) for an appeal and review of the events from May 5th up to and including the meeting of June 4th where I believed my rights under the Human Rights Code were violated.
29. I received an email from Ms Lavergne on July 11, 2008. They had concluded their investigation and found that the informal process as outlined in the RWP had been adhered to. They had made no request to contact me for details. I replied on September 21, 2008 stating that she had not addressed the matters pertaining to Ms. Beauchamp conduct in particular pertaining to The Human Rights Code. No reply.
30. On July 11, 2008 I received an email from my employment agency. Ms Beauchamp had given a negative unsubstantiated reference. OSD took three weeks to respond to the request and then with malice negatively impacted my chances for new employment.
31. On September 18, 2008 I received a written response regarding the RWP complaint from OSD regarding my complaint dated May 4, 2008. I was not offered an opportunity to discuss the findings prior to the final response nor given a chance to correct any errors or omissions. I sent an email to Ms. Grimard on September 20, 2008 requesting to meet stating that the issues of the complaint had not been addressed. To date, Ms Grimard has not replied to my request to meet.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in my employment on the basis of my mental disability (Bipolar Affective Disorder) and/or failed to reasonably accommodate my special needs which were based on my disability and that discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in my employment on the basis of my mental disability (Bipolar Affective Disorder) in not offering permanent employment, but rather term extensions and after terminating me offered permanent employment to Iris Kennedy and that discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in conditions of my employment on the basis of my religion (Christian) by failing to take effective action to stop my co-worker from using God’s name in vain, and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in the conditions of my employment on the basis of my ancestry (Métis) in applying differential treatment with respect to rights and privileges between employees and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in the conditions of my employment on the basis of my ancestry (Métis ) in undertaking abusive and unwelcome comments regarding Aboriginal people as having no worth and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 19 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me by not allowing access to the benefit of Employee Assistance Program and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to and contrary to Section 13 of The Human Rights Code.
Under The Human Rights Code (Manitoba)
The Complainant alleges that in the Province of Manitoba, on a continuing basis up to and including September 18, 2008 that the Respondent did contravene Sections 13, 14 and 19 of The Human Rights Code, or any other applicable section as follows
1. My employment with the Provincial Government began January 2005 and was terminated June 30, 2008. During the course of my various term positions,
a. I had self-declared under the Employment Equity as being a woman of Métis status,
b. I had not self-declared that I suffer from a lifelong mental illness because of the stigma associated with mental illness. I also felt that the existing governmental policies adequately addressed my health needs and mental well being, and
c. I have represented myself to my co-workers as being, and living according to Christian values and principles, providing my sons with a private Christian School education and supporting the Church and its community outreach projects. I credit God’s presence for sustaining me during the darkest hours of psychosis as well as my faith for enabling me to take personal responsibility for my health and welfare over the past 17 years.
2. My mood disorder resulted from two postpartum mania episodes leading to psychosis, the first occurring July 1991 and the last episode requiring hospitalization occurred in 2001. Once stabilized, Lithium is required to control, and minimize chances of mania. I have taken daily doses of Lithium since 1993. The illness does not change my values and principles but under extreme stressed conditions, beliefs are intensified. Because of my history of multiple episodes, my doctor advised that the medications to bring me out of psychosis may not work the next time, and that the next episode may result in permanent institutionalization.
3. Through trials and errors I believe I have been successful at sustaining recovery. My resume highlights a successful work and volunteer history. I credit my illness as the catalyst that has enabled me to develop a healthier personal and work life balance. Prior to OSD, I had a perfect work attendance record as well as excellent performance references.
4. I began a one-year term position from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, with a further extension to June 30, 2008 as Training Administrator, Clerk 3 with the Provincial Government, Organization & Staff Development (“OSD”), a non-union, special operating agency of the Manitoba Civil Service Commission (“CSC”). The T.A. Clerk 3 position is an ongoing OSD position that (other than my terms) has been filled as a permanent position. Jackie Desrochers, Manager of Training Services (OSD) and Diane Netzel, Registrar, Clerk 3 (OSD) participated in the interview panel wherein I self-declared as being of Métis status. As a result of past and recent circumstances as referred to herein, I believe that Ms Desrochers was aware of my mental illness history.
5. My co-worker, Diane Netzel and I shared office space during my term. Although our classification was the same and position descriptions mirrored the other, I believe I was discriminated against and treated in a subservient manner. My supervisor, supported unfair work practices and work distribution at my expense. Menial tasks that stemmed from the Registrar (Guide) materials were routinely given to me to file, destroy, organize or run over to Place Louis Hotel. Both Ms Netzel and Ms Desrochers had expressed their contempt of Aboriginal people and resented their preferential treatment in government. As they both knew I had self-declared at the interview, I found their statements to be directed at me.
6. As part of my Learning Plan on or about December 2007 I expressed my intention to Ms Desrochers to attend the Aboriginal workshop scheduled January 2008. I explained that in light of the renewal initiative and the fact that the Aboriginal population is the only one that is significantly growing, I felt it would be good for me to better understand the culture. Jackie seemed disinterested so I asked her if she had ever taken the workshop as I had skimmed through the information every time I packed the workshop and found it incredible. Jackie exclaimed she “had her fill of it. If you had to sit though all the meetings I had to put up with because of them, you’d understand. I don’t need to go to any workshops.” I then removed myself from the January workshop as I did not want to further antagonize my supervisor.
7. Throughout my employment, my co-worker Diane Netzel would swear on a daily basis. Most upsetting was when she would use God’s name in vain. She frequently shouted in anger “Jesus”, “Jesus Christ”, “for God’s sake” or “for Christ sake”. Co-workers told me that she had been asked in the past to stop swearing. Ms Netzel responded by cutting out an outline of a hand with a middle finger pointing up, which she then taped to a stick. When she felt like swearing, she would give people ‘the finger’. People found this more annoying than the swearing. Since management had taken no action, co-workers eventually accepted that nothing could, or would be done about it. However, as we were sharing office space and the swearing was recurring daily, I did let Ms Netzel know that I wanted her to stop. Her response was “forget about it, you’re not the first one to ask me to stop. It won’t work. You don’t want me to do to you, what I did to them.” And then she laughingly recounted to me ‘the finger’ story. I discussed this with her supervisor. Although Ms Desrochers witnessed the swearing firsthand and at times it was directed at her, at no time was I ever aware that Ms Netzel was reproached for her inappropriate behavior. On March 11, 2008 I advised Ms Beauchamp that I took issue with the fact that Ms Desrochers never took a supervisory role with respect to the swearing, and that it was still continuing, but still no action.
8. The unfair work distribution grew to unrealistic proportions due to:
a. Communications Coordinator position being vacant since October 2007, and all special projects work (during the five months up to my sick leave) was given to me;
b. A new inexperienced broker resulted in an increase in In-house workshops to me;
c. Ms Netzel was away on an extended sick leave beginning February 2008 and this work was also redirected to me.
9. The workplace became very toxic in that the work expectations were unreasonable and I felt my supervisor was not providing me with the necessary tools to get all the work done. I felt hostility from Ms Desrochers when asking for support or direction. I began physically feeling the strain of workplace stress in that I suffered daily migraines, hot flashes, muscle aches and difficulty in breathing with chest pains that resulted in medical attention.
10. On Friday afternoon, February 8, 2008, I met with newly appointed Director (OSD), Anna Schmidt Beauchamp and I shared with her what I believed were organizational problems with OSD. I felt the meeting was productive, and I felt my concerns acknowledged and support from Ms Beauchamp. She too had observed that changes were needed.
11. On Monday, February 11th, Ms Beauchamp sent me an email requesting a contact phone number in case of medical emergency. I believed this precautionary action was as a result of Ms Desrochers advising Ms Beauchamp of my medical illness history. I viewed this as a positive sign that Ms Beauchamp had my health and best interests in mind. I responded to her email by providing four phone numbers.
12. From this point on, Ms Desrochers became extremely hostile as she viewed my comments to the Director (and her supervisor) as a personal attack. In retaliation, on March 5th (in the presence of Ms Beauchamp) she deliberately fabricated a non-issue matter and presented it as an ongoing performance issue. As a result of this unsupported claim I was not offered permanent employment. As I defended myself during this meeting against the unsupported attack, I noticed Ms Beauchamp’s attention was averted to my hands as I was experiencing hand tremors. I then explained it was a result of medication that I needed to take.
13. On March 7th I had taken a VL day and spent the weekend putting together a detailed report illustrating the duties, responsibilities and extra projects I had undertaken in preparation for my defence against the accusations. On March 10th I provided Ms Beauchamp with that information including correspondence from trainers and participants indicating a positive rapport and appreciation for my assistance. I then requested a meeting with Ms Beauchamp and Ms Desrochers. I provided the Agenda.
14. On March 11, 2008 I clearly illustrated that the allegations were false. Ms Beauchamp verbally acknowledged that I had been wronged, and that as part of the CSC, “we clearly need to pick up our socks”. I requested that the purpose of the meeting be documented. I had previous discussions with co-workers who recounted personal experiences of harassment at the hands of Ms Desrochers and so I believed it to be important that a true account of the incident be documented. I further requested that the information being collected in my personnel file be accurate and complete as provided under FIPPA. During the meeting I showed signs of physical distress. I found it exceedingly difficult to speak as my mouth was parched. I did bring water to the meeting but my hand tremors became so uncontrollable that I could not control my hand to lift the glass. Once again, I explained that I was on medication. As I could not stop shaking and crying, I excused myself halfway through the meeting until I felt I had regained control. At the end of the meeting Ms Beauchamp said she would draft a Memorandum to capture what was discussed. After Ms Desrochers left the room, I told her I didn’t understand why it happened, but I believed that things happen for a reason and that something good would come out of this. Ms Beauchamp agreed with me in my belief that things happen for a reason.
15. Memorandum dated March 12, 2008 and drafted by Ms Beauchamp did not reflect any accountability or responsibility on the part of Ms Desrochers. I did not sign the memo and insisted that a true accounting of the March 11th meeting be documented. Ms Desrochers provided me with a positive reference letter dated March 17, 2008, but I still persisted in my request to Ms Beauchamp for a revised Memorandum. I was given a memo dated April 7, 2008. There was little change from the original memo of March 12, 2008. However, this time I was not asked to sign that I was in agreement. The topic was not open to further discussion.
16. The workplace stress continued to increase. Ms Netzel was still away on sick leave. I had taken vacation days from March 27 to April 7, 2008 as mental health days but as there was no backup relief for either Clerk positions, the work waiting for me on my return was insurmountable. The stress was further compounded as a result of ensuing lengthy and harassing meetings with Ms Desrochers, details of which had been provided in the Respectful Workplace Policy complaint.
17. That on April 9, 2008 I forwarded a lengthy email to Ms Desrochers with copy to Ms Beauchamp. The email clearly showed that I was in crisis; I provided detailed information about work; I states that I am awake at 3:00 a.m. in the morning; I refer to myself in the third party and paraphrasing Dr. Haim Ginott, I state:
“….a supervisor possesses tremendous power to make an employee’s life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of inspiration. I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal. In all situations it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated, and an employee humanized or dehumanized.”
I further advised that I would be filing a complaint against Ms Desrochers. As I had not slept the night before, I phoned in sick and made an appointment to see my doctor. He felt I was suffering from harassment and he put me on medical leave from April 9 to April 23, 2008 and further extended to May 4, 2008.
18. On April 10, 2008 Ms Beauchamp sent me an email indicating, “When you are well enough to return to work, the matter outlined in this email (para.17) will be appropriately addressed. Until then, your return to health is of primary importance.” I replied on April 11, 2008 with copy to Debra Woodgate, CSC Commissioner referring to the situation as a crisis.
19. Following my return to work on May 5, 2008:
a. I submitted the Respectful Workplace Policy (RWP) Level 4 complaint against Ms Desrochers. Neither Ms Beauchamp nor anyone in HR or EAP discussed this matter with me. There were no polite inquiries as to my health. No discussions pertaining to changes in duties. I could not talk to co-workers about the complaint and felt totally alienated.
b. My computer files and Outlook folders had been deleted during my sick leave. According to EDS (tech support), I was advised that someone in my department had done the deletion manually. Laurel Munn, Training & Development Officer (OSD) advised that Ms Desrochers had access to my files and folders and had provided her with a ‘snapshot’ of my files. There is no explanation as to the purpose of accessing my files, as all OSD work was stored on the shared drive.
c. When advised of the deletion, Ms Beauchamp simply stated that she ‘had not authorized it’. I later advised Ms Beauchamp that I had made the request for EDS to restore my files. Although her authorization was not necessary nonetheless she did have knowledge that it happened. To my knowledge this incident was not investigated.
d. Ms Beauchamp advised that she would be my supervisor.
20. The first meeting with Ms Beauchamp as my supervisor to discuss changes in my duties occurred on May 26, 2008, three weeks after my return. I found it very stressful to not be informed of any development pertaining to the complaint or changes in my duties. I felt that that there was no sense of order and none of the steps outlined in government policies had been taken. I felt confused by Ms Beauchamp’s cold demeanour especially in light of her earlier caring comments as well as follow up Get Well card. At the meeting:
a. Ms Beauchamp factually stated that Ginette Grimard, HR Finance would be investigating the RWP complaint and I would be contacted. She would be in attendance to observe. There was no discussion.
b. I had earlier discovered that I was the contact person on the OSD website for five programs that I had no knowledge of. The first call I received, I forwarded an email on May 12th to Shirley Swan, Development Consultant (OSD) as the caller was requesting consultation regarding career advancement strategies. On May 16 once I realized my number was on the website, I sent Ms Beauchamp an email asking if this was an error. It is at this May 26th meeting that my question is addressed and I am criticized and reprimanded for not being able to carry out the expectations of my job. She then returned my request form for VRW days and VL days and merely stated, “It’s not necessary. The decision regarding your term has not been made.” As I felt the environment to be threatening, I did not address any issue raised.
21. On May 30, 2008 I sent an email to both Laurel Munn and Charlotte Elson A/Manager of Training and Operations inquiring whether we had received the materials for a workshop scheduled in Gimli on June 5, 2008. Procedures had not been followed regarding In-house workshops. OSD policy requires that the consultant provide the name of the workbook and date the material is expected and it was not provided. The project sheet had not been placed in the tray for processing. Ms Desrochers had left OSD on May 2nd and yet she was recorded as entering the workshop on May 16th. Letters of Agreement to trainer and client had not been sent out.
22. The responding email from Ms Elson sent Friday, May 30, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. was received by me on Monday June 2, 2008 a.m. stated:
“…it would seem to me that perhaps it would make more sense for you to contact (the trainer) directly to clarify that information. I could certainly understand that if there was an issue of greater magnitude that it might make sense for us to get involved.
If however there is an issue with the trainer that compromises your ability to do this directly please let myself know and we can figure out how to deal with it.
I would also suggest that this process be standard procedure whenever items of clarification need to be dealt with, with any of the trainers.”
I believe Ms Desrochers had coerced Ms Elson to reply in this hostile manner. I brought the email to the RWP investigative meeting (June 2nd) to illustrate that the harassment was continuing. Eventually, Ms Beauchamp stated that she directed Ms Elson.
Upon my return to work, I contacted the trainer for the materials and she advised that the materials had been sent to Ms Munn. Ms Munn confirmed that she had received the materials days earlier but had not forwarded them to me. That evening I kept reliving the day’s events. My mental health was at risk with another sleepless night.
23. On June 3, 2008 I advised I was taking a sick day. I addressed the email to Ms Elson and copied Ms Munn. I reiterated my rationale as to why I had contacted both of them on May 30th for the printing materials. I felt it was logical to first check with the two people who may know something about the workshop rather than appearing unprofessional to the trainer. As Ms Munn had the workshop materials in her office, it would appear that I had acted sensibly. In my frustration, I signed off “Marie (name in full). Civil Subservient”..
24. On June 4th I began work at noon as I had taken a pre-approved half-day vacation. Ms Elson asked me to come to her office at 1:00. It was not a scheduled meeting and I was not aware that Ms Beauchamp would be in attendance. I therefore found myself unprepared for the attack lasting approximately one hour. Ms Beauchamp set the tone and took control of the meeting. The following was discussed;
a. Ms Beauchamp stated that my email was inappropriate and disrespectful to Ms Elson and I should not have involved Ms Munn. I explained that Ms Munn was copied on the email as she was directly involved in the subject matter of the Gimli workshop materials. The reply sent to Ms Elson was an attempt to clarify and confirm the intent of the email as to whether they were trying to imply that I did not make sense.
b. Ms Beauchamp insisted once again that I was being unfair to Ms Elson as she was new to the position. I felt it was unfair that they were projecting their beliefs onto Ms Elson and use her to send me a harassing email. I believed that this was in retaliation of filing the complaint, and as a result I had been ‘red flagged’. Ms Beauchamp then replied, “You can’t think that way. You think everybody is out to get you.”
c. Criticism regarding my signing the email as Civil Subservient was discussed and through tears, I explained that it reflected how I was made to feel. I was accused of making little sense; and I did feel I was being treated in a subservient manner. I further explained, “You don’t send an email like that to someone who has been off on stress leave and tell them that you’re not making sense.”
d. Ms Beauchamp acknowledged that I had disclosed at the meeting (on June 2nd) my mental health illness and that I had mentioned I was on medication. She then said, “Maybe if you could tell us more about your medical condition?” I explained that 17 years ago I was told I had a mental health issue. As a result I have had to adopt a healthy lifestyle. I need to exercise, eat healthy, but most important is getting enough sleep. That is why the stress with Jackie was so hard on me. I would go home and feel that I had to work on my defence against Jackie’s attacks. This affected my sleep. That’s why I went on sick leave” (3 ½ weeks medical leave). Ms Beauchamp asked if it was possible that I overreacted to the email as a result of the meeting on Monday? Having to re-live all the details got you all upset…”
e. I replied that it was upsetting. “But my illness does not make me imagine things. I’m not crazy. It hasn’t affected my ability to work.” I further explained that I had had a number of stressful jobs but never has it affected my health as long as I am treated with respect. “If I feel I am being attacked, my thoughts speed up. When that happens I can’t sleep. If I don’t sleep, then it can get so bad that I have to be hospitalized. I now recognize when I am beginning to speed up. I know how to deal with it. That’s why I went to my doctor. But it doesn’t mean that I’m crazy. I just get accelerated. Like in a panic situation where your adrenaline kicks in. The police said I was like someone on cocaine. I’ve never been on cocaine so I can’t say. But it doesn’t mean I’m irrational. “ At this point my speech, my thoughts and my crying are flooding out uncontrollably. I am handed a box of Kleenex from Ms Elson.
f. Ms Beauchamp said in a patronizing manner, “Look at you. There’s something wrong with you. You can’t thing that way. You’re wrong.” I told her “You can’t tell me what I can or cannot think. How I feel. I own it and it’s based on my perception of what’s going on. My perception is based on all the events that have taken place since I returned from stress leave”. I then explained what I believed to be the protocol when someone returns from sick leave especially in light the emails I had sent to work. But there was no process of re-entry to work. Nobody talked to me at all for weeks. Ms Beauchamp was annoyed and replied, “What did you expect me to say to you?” I told her she could have welcomed me back to work, meet with me to discuss the complaint, clarify work issues, suggest to speak to someone at EAP to deal with the complaint or my health, seeing as I was off on stress leave – the things that you’re supposed to do for someone when they file a complaint.” She asked where did it say that. I told her the Respectful Workplace Policy.
g. Still crying, I detail the events of the manual deletion of my files; change in duties involving OPCP; criticized for not having knowledge of programs that I had never been advised I was made contact person for; having the VL and VRW form returned as deemed unnecessary, and this last attack saying that I am not making sense and questioning my ability to do my job. Feeling totally frantic and beaten, I blurt out “I swear to God and on the lives of my sons that I truly believe with all my heart that what I have said is the absolute truth, the procedure I had followed was exactly as I had followed throughout the past year and that I have done nothing to deserve this unfair treatment. And if you don’t see that what you are doing now as unfair, and how you are treating me is wrong and disrespectful to me, then don’t renew my term.” She then said that if that is what you want I won’t renew the term. I told her it seemed pretty obvious that that is what they wanted.
I was clearly in distress throughout the meeting and yet at no time did either of them suggest that we resume this meeting at a later time to enlist the aid of someone in HR trained in mental health matters. Once the realization set in that I was now unemployed (which plays a tremendous part in my recovery), I stood at the desk, stared blankly ahead and did not speak. Then in a barely audible voice I asked questions about Ms Elson’s children, which was rather surreal in light of the present situation. This was clearly awkward for them and they just wanted me to leave the office. Ms Beauchamp made no offer to phone any one of the four phone numbers I had previously given to her for such an emergency.
25. On June 5, 2008 Ms Beauchamp placed a memorandum on my desk stating that it was I who did not wish my term to be renewed and thus my term would end on June 30, 2008. I told her that the memorandum was not accurate in that it was their choice to terminate. I never signed the memorandum. Record of Employment indicates ‘term expiration’.
26. On June 10, 2008 I advised Ms Beauchamp that I had a doctor’s appointment the next day. This was a follow up appointment from the medical leave. She did not believe me and requested that I bring in a doctor’s certificate. As a medical certificate is only required after three days sick leave, I believe this to be harassment. I provided the doctor’ confirmation of appointment.
27. On June 17, 2008 I called EAP. The receptionist took my name and home, cell and work phone numbers. I was told that I would receive a call within 24 hours. The call was not returned.
28. On June 25, 2008 I provided a letter to Sylvie Lavergne, Director, Human Resources Programs (as indicated in the Respectful Workplace Policy) for an appeal and review of the events from May 5th up to and including the meeting of June 4th where I believed my rights under the Human Rights Code were violated.
29. I received an email from Ms Lavergne on July 11, 2008. They had concluded their investigation and found that the informal process as outlined in the RWP had been adhered to. They had made no request to contact me for details. I replied on September 21, 2008 stating that she had not addressed the matters pertaining to Ms. Beauchamp conduct in particular pertaining to The Human Rights Code. No reply.
30. On July 11, 2008 I received an email from my employment agency. Ms Beauchamp had given a negative unsubstantiated reference. OSD took three weeks to respond to the request and then with malice negatively impacted my chances for new employment.
31. On September 18, 2008 I received a written response regarding the RWP complaint from OSD regarding my complaint dated May 4, 2008. I was not offered an opportunity to discuss the findings prior to the final response nor given a chance to correct any errors or omissions. I sent an email to Ms. Grimard on September 20, 2008 requesting to meet stating that the issues of the complaint had not been addressed. To date, Ms Grimard has not replied to my request to meet.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in my employment on the basis of my mental disability (Bipolar Affective Disorder) and/or failed to reasonably accommodate my special needs which were based on my disability and that discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in my employment on the basis of my mental disability (Bipolar Affective Disorder) in not offering permanent employment, but rather term extensions and after terminating me offered permanent employment to Iris Kennedy and that discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in conditions of my employment on the basis of my religion (Christian) by failing to take effective action to stop my co-worker from using God’s name in vain, and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in the conditions of my employment on the basis of my ancestry (Métis) in applying differential treatment with respect to rights and privileges between employees and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 14 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me in the conditions of my employment on the basis of my ancestry (Métis ) in undertaking abusive and unwelcome comments regarding Aboriginal people as having no worth and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to Section 19 of The Human Rights Code.
I believe that the Respondent discriminated against me by not allowing access to the benefit of Employee Assistance Program and that the discrimination was not based upon bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualifications for the employment or occupation contrary to and contrary to Section 13 of The Human Rights Code.
